PS3 vs 360 Face-Off: Dead Rising 2 | Digital Foundry

Digital Foundry: "In the case of Dead Rising 2, a new studio also means a new engine: only recently, with the development of Marvel vs. Capcom 3, has the publisher allowed the use of its prized Framework MT technology outside of its Japanese HQ, so Blue Castle Games utilised its own technology for this release. The result is pretty impressive: the tech manages to process the requisite multitudes of zombies rather well and the draw distance and LOD transitions are fairly smooth with only minimal amounts of pop-up.

Disadvantages arrive in the form of sometimes-basic environments and lighting, along with some low-poly characters, but the overall effect is impressive. The question is, does the technical accomplishment translate over to the PS3 version of the game?"

It's interesting to me how many multiplat games are out there, and how infrequently we see these types of comparisons, and when we do see these comparisons on sites like Eurogamer - they mainly focus on strong 360 games. What about the other 98% of games, because if reviewer scores speak the truth, the vast majority of multiplat games seem to review better on the PS3, and have since 2008.

Some ports are good on the PS3, some on the 360 but most games are so close you'd never notice. What I hate is the usual crowd that use these comparisons as some proof that their console is better than the other. It's not. It speaks to the developers strenghts. Nothing more.

Still don't understand why they port over the compression! 360 version 6.1GB. PS3 version 5.91 GB.

This is the case with every multiplatform, 360 lead game. Cell is designed to run uncompressed code from a disk format that requires no compression and spares loss of memory, reduced image and sound quality that is synonymous with compression. Yet it is like these devs are just stuck in a feedback loop and can't fathom writing code without it.

Also had a few crybaby little girls put me on their ignore list JUST for submitting it and was even accused of making up and writing the story myself just to bash the PS3...even though the PS3 is my console of choice. What a weird, insecure bunch we have here on N4G.

On Topic: Even though I wasn't much looking forward to DR2, this is still a big disappointment to me. Definitely won't be picking this one up...at least not until it drops way down in price.

"The PS3 rendition of Dead Rising 2 appears to be using an entirely different approach to the rendering. V-sync is disengaged completely, as is the 30FPS frame-rate cap. What this means is screen-tear is an ever-present element of the image"

Well it turns out that 2brothers and 2 sisters blog (or whatever it was called) was right about the pervasive screen tearing in the PS3 version.

It also goes to show that some of the people claiming that the 360 version has just as much screen tearing as the PS3 version were just talking out their you-know-whats.

"there's some good news for Xbox 360 owners. Probably the most immediately apparent upgrade over the first game is that the developer is running with v-sync active, meaning that there is absolutely no screen-tear at all"

Having a console for just exclusives makes no sense. There are many great multiplatform games and the negligible differences are only worth arguing over by fanboys. The problem is, Sony justified its console's initial price tag by labeling it the most powerful console. It then spent millions within its internal development studios building the software to justify this claim. The fact is, the PS3 is the more powerful console but developers aren't going to change the foundation of how they've developed games for the pass 15 years just to appease Sony's fanboy base. It isn't worth the investment. The compromises made to PS3 multiplatform games aren't even discernable.

Problem is , Apple did the same, they spent millions in internal development (Software & Hardware) building to justify the claim....

Deal with it MS boy, Life beyond it exists...

I own multi platform, multi OS, Multi console systems....

To Add , you cant go telling me, if the internet becomes "The Cloud", and all games are distributed that way, I'm going to be happy missing out on the absolute, get the "F" outta here game, thats an exclusive to "X" device.

As for me, I'm buying it.

I'm a gamer.

+ bubble for you to answer.

Edit: "Having a console for just exclusives makes no sense" If they are there, Yes it does...

While I agree with your comment, I have to wonder who it is meant for. The guy said he likes exclusives and you pretend he said he "only" likes them. Next time you might want to respond to what he actually said. Sounds like you put words in his mouth.

Frankly, I don't understand it. At this point the average performance differences on multiplat Games are tiny. Why isn't Capcom meeting the same quality as so many other devs? It's bizarre they don't understand that releasing sub par versions of their titles is slowly alienating the world's 38 Million PS3 gamers. Come to think of it, I haven't purchased a single Capcom game in the 3 and 1/2 years I've owned a PS3...because Capcom's games ALWAYS require massive installs and the performance and visuals are STILL subpar.

No wonder your revs are down, Capcom. Other devs, that work harder to ensure quality across all platforms, deserve consumer money far more than you do.

I have. Street fighter 4 and Super street fighter 4. Other then that nothing. Big fighting game fan and fan of the fighting game dev's at Capcom. However games like Lost Planet, Resident Evil and Dead Rising just have wonky controls, sub par graphics no matter what your preferred console is, Lame stories and just don't hold up to western adventure games like Uncharted, GOW, RDR, Dead Space or others...

well, this happens when devs port from one platform to the other (and don't do it well)

ported games always suck, its just a shame devs are more used to 360 (more time with it)

+ its Dead Rising 2, the dev team behind it probably used the same "engine/structure" from dead rising 1 and changed things up, thus having it all in "360 code" - which never bodes well on PS3 =|

however, how this is a BAD thing I don't know. It works, and although in lesser quality, its still available on both consoles - more people enjoying the game.

@everyone using this as "proof" that PS3 "isn't" more powerful - you are confusing console HARDWARE with DEVELOPER COMPETENCE to PORT A GAME. its stupid logic, as stupid yet as valid as saying - is there ANYTHING on 360 NEARLY as mind blowing as Uncharted2 or GOWIII or GT5? no, thus 360 is weaker > retarded arguments are retarded.

in the end, both console owners will enjoy the game =) (as opposed to it being exclusive)

Why is it "developer competence" when it comes to all the multiplatform games, but it's not developer competence when it comes to exclusives?

I mean, we know that Sony has more studios and that several of those studios are known for their technical know-how. Which developers under Microsoft's umbrella are really focused on pushing graphics? Lionhead? Rare?

Honestly, it's easy to see that Microsoft simply doesn't have the kind of studios that are interested in trying to really push graphics.

So why is it that if the PS3 gets a great looking exclusive the PS3 gets all the credit, but if the 360 gets a great looking multiplat it doesn't get the credit and it is all of a sudden because of "developer competence"?

The problem is that everyone is still using a single Engine to port either PS3 code to the 360 or 360 code to the PS3. In the end, all they're doing is programming for the lowest common denominator which results in both having their faults and usually the PS3 looking worse off because they don't want to take any time to program for more than 3 SPEs.

They need to have two teams that will take the core data and modify it for the strength of each one rather than just cutting out the parts that don't work on one or the other.

Either that or at least put your core development on the PS3 with an engine that is able to translate from 7 SPEs to the 360s 3 cores with regard to data processing and memory management. Going the other way just isn't going to work and will result in more work with lesser results.

and you do realise that these concurrent development games - theyre not ports - DO have different teams generally working on the different platforms, dont you? its not just one bunch of people making both.

Your wrong... let me explain why. All the 6 spus on ps3 run at 3.2ghz. The 360 has 3 cores that run at 3.2ghz. when the the 360 has 2 threads per core each thread would not run at 3.2ghz. It would be half that so 1.6 ghz per thread on 360 and 3.2ghz per thread on ps3.

IMHO, it's not the developers. If the developers had time, they make both of them as good as they can for their respective platform. The problem is budget management by the upper management and the desire to design their games in a manner that makes them as equal as possible across both platforms.

The PS3 has strong points, but mainly the game needs to be catered in its favor. Meaning when you port a game designed to run on unified shaders (360/PC's--this is how Schools teach you to design) to PS3 with (vertex/pixel/SPU's) its slightly limited in rendering the same image (If the scene is limited by one of the three). But when you have scenes that uses all three equally (Very hard to do when its designed for unified) would solve this.

Its unlikely however as the first option is much more efficient in time/money for companies. Usually most MPlat comparisons the 360 will win because of this. But you can see that when a game (Exclusive usually) is made for the PS3 it clearly shines when utilized properly because of the additional bandwidth the SPU's allow; but people need to understand that because a exclusive (catered) game looks amazing shouldn't mean all Mplat should either, that is highly ignorant to state without knowing how the PS3 works.

This will likely be the case the whole gen (Since DEV costs have always been on the rise and most publishers push and push to keep them low) with the odd Mplat game being used for the PS3 (but even then, if the engine isnt up to the task the PS3 version might suffer, or the Xbox will be losing out on the additional SPU post processing effects (overlays/particle effects, filets etc might be more limited).

That is the most honest view you'll read on here, anything differently is most likely a little fan girl running his mouth.

What is going on with the comments in this thread! They are so so similar with any differences being completely negligible...whats all the beef about? Its the same game where you go around killing zombies, who the fuck cares which version is marginally better. Get someone to watch the vids in this article without knowing which is which and most will find it hard to pick out a clear winner.

Anyone planning to play both versions side by side? No? Then shut the hell up and just play the damn game. (On PC if it matters that much)

No, I have the PS3 version and have never played the 360 version, but I could tell right away that it had a ton of screen tearing and it really bothers me. I hate screen tearing worse than anything. It makes a game feel broken and unfinished.

The PC version is the superior version anyway so who cares?? The 360 fanboys can say what they like but the PC version blows them both away. Going through this though PS3 hasn't really done that bad and considering all capcom had to do for 360 version was port the original game engine they didn't have much to do. With PS3 version they had to port it to an entire new console. You forget it was on 360 first (the first game) so they ported that engine over and PS3 is NOT built the same way 360 is and vice versa that's why FF13 looked so bad on 360. The PC version seems like it was a new build though and looks dreamy.

@Karooo - It's funny that the PS3 version is smaller but still needs a 2.8 gb mandatory install to work. And the fact that the install doesn't make the game run better, like the optional installs on the 360 usually do.

The PS3 version is a smaller file size on - on disc no less, has a smaller install though its required, and yet it has issues. With the obvious question of why didn't the devs use the obvious extra space they had to fix issues.

Hell, given that they were already treating the PS3 version as a 2nd class port, why didn't they just delay it?

Its not really funny, just sad that coders would screw up on such a level.

He just says "lol" because he has nothing of value to add. He thinks it is funny that devs can take advantage of the mandatory harddrive each PS3 has... Hardy har har. Sony gives the devs options to install, which makes the game play better on the PS3. Imagine if the company you worship - Microsoft would have been so short sighted this gen and allowed devs to do that? That calls for a LOL.

No way is this worse than Bayonetta. The loading times are bad on both the 360 and PS3, but at least they're not increased on the PS3 and the reduced textures don't suffer as much as they did in Bayonetta.

I'm definitely disappointed in the development results. It's 2010, they shouldn't be having this issues in developing for the PS3, let alone the 360 (framerate). Like I said two weeks ago, Capcom lacks in competent developers, IMHO.

Andatmory installs on the ps3 take forever and they are the result of slow ass bluray and a slow ass operating system. Ps3 is a mess and the only ones that can even utilize its systems are first party devvs backed by sonys money.

Godmars290, absolutely... I am not disagreeing with you there. My comment is a direct response to the stupidity of trolls trying to make like HDD installs are some sort of negative aspect, when in fact they are not.

I'm no developer so I'm just speculating. Just saying that the data might be arranged differently on the 360 versus PS3 disc, so you can't compare them just by size. They might have duplicate data on the 360 disc to speed loading or something.

It's too bad the PS3 port is weaker, but I'm still looking forward to it nevertheless since it doesn't affect playability much...